The two major conceptual handicaps scientists confronted when facing this question.
Quote from Markham Heid article “What Near-Death Experiences Teach Us about the Brain”:
(Pim van Lommel) compares the brain to a television set; just as a TV can convert electromagnetic waves of information into sights and sounds, perhaps the brain and body are mere conduits for consciousness.
No matter how much resistance other scientists will oppose to this comparison, Pim van Lommel is absolutely right!
The first scientific mistake resides in their inability to consider that ‘consciousness’ is not the product of our brains but, instead, the energetic entity…
That was the title of an article published by Ella Alderson, and once again, I was very disappointed by the content despite a very promising title!
I expected a real and physical argument against the most arbitrary mathematical constant introduced in Physics by Einstein’s mathematical conclusions… But I have no time to repeat my long-explained criticism of both theoretical (Einstein’s 1905 article) and experimental (Morley-Michelson ether attempt measurement) in my 2016 French book (Google Books).
Nevertheless, here some further physical problems found into that mathematical arbitrary declaration that measured speed of polarized light could be attributed to everything else existing…
(Comment to Corinne Purtill article)
When Science arrogance tries to debunk Religion hypocrisy, we all ended living in absolute ignorance about the natural reality we are and live in!
That’s why they have called ‘paranormal’ whatever… but wait: what is the normal?
When two guys detected radio waves in their radar, that became a Nobel prized experience because it supposedly proved Einstein’s and Cosmologists religious beliefs that their relativistic Universe was contracting or expanding or whatever… when a regular person registered or filmed anything that could be interpreted as to prove something ‘paranormal’ then that’s considered quackery!
Where’s the difference here?
What makes the radio detection and its relativistic interpretation more truthful and credible than the one given to ‘paranormal’ electromagnetic phenomena?
Nothing does, but the wrongful beliefs created by our arrogant modern ‘scientific‘ religions!
They aren’t! Thought experiments are not experimenting on the physical reality but in a metaphorical imaginary one… Einstein was a genius for his imaginary Universe, the one he examined with his famous thought experiments unrelated to the Natural realm or the physical reality of it.
Since then, all those modern Physics do is what Marx called ‘trying to fit reality into’ his thought experimental imaginary relativistic universe!
And sadly for humanity, philosophers are too busy debating their own thoughts in their philosophical Cave since the first philosophers observed the outside Nature and tried to explain themselves!
Being a philosopher is…
… of life, not really a “religion” in the way we in the West think of it — then the teachings of the Buddha offer a better way, a more scientific way of understanding what is “out there” and why our attachment to it causes so much suffering.
What we really know about Buddha?
(Commenting Claire Goldsberry comments about Buddha’s teachings)
Dear Claire, you know Buddha through the teachings of his most ignorant servant!
So you don’t really know anything about what he really tough because he was his only disciple or person who received Buddha’s expressed thoughts… the same thing happened to Jesus' teachings even if he has 12 direct disciples and several popular public interactions.
Suppose you believe in the quantum elementary principle (which Greek atomists first established) that everything emerges from the same elementary particles. In that case, we are all relied on by those…
Modern Plato’s Cave?
(Comment to Jacob Wilkins’ article The Meaning Behind Plato’s Cave)
Modern Physics' is the Platonic Cave modern version since the world adopted Einstein’s theories and concepts!
That is my essential philosophical task these days: convincing anyone who wants to be delivered from the relativistic chains, show that they can be free if only they come out and observe the Universe without looking to fit it into Einstein’s views!
Thanks for bringing the historical context of the original allegory!
To all those who have been trying to bring back the Nature into Physics
The content of this article was part of my congratulatory reponse to the excellent article published by Brett Holverstott: The Quantum Bubble. To be noted: this is the very first article I wrote in English and my first article published in Medium.
It has been more than a decade I actively started demanding a total review of several well stablished theories which — during my years of philosophical researches — I found to be completely erroneous when confronted with the observable physical reality and, moreover; when…
Socratic thoughts on any and everything